ping
I highly recommend this book. It's much better than Prey was ;)
Chrichton is right.
In all of creation, only arrogant man would actually believe that he is able to thwart God or irretrievably alter his creation and go beyond the boundries he has set.
Just for starters:
Who were the 18? How were they selected for interview? In what way is this professor of physics you quoted a climate scientist?
And what did the idiot scientists say about that loony movie that was all the lefty rage before the election?
It's a novel so it can have any plot line the author wants it to.
Scientists don't operate on the basis of how many agree and how many disagree on something. This gives away the liberal slant because that's the way liberal journalists think: the truth is identified by how big a majority believe it. "Science by consensus is a liberal fantasy.
Good for Chrichton!
Crichton is right on the science but State of Fear is a terrible novel. The characters are completely undeveloped and the situations in the novel are ridiculous. It read like a hastily written first draft. The man needs a new editor.
Crichton drops in graphs and footnotes to buttress his contention that global warming isn't a real problem.
Wrong. Crichton drops in graphs and footnotes to buttress his conclusion that the evidence for global warming is a very, very great deal less sound than environmentalists think it is -- both as to whether it's occurring at all and as to whether human beings are contributing to it if it is occurring. He doesn't claim it isn't a real problem; he says that's an open question and it's way too early to get excited about it.
It would sure be nice if journalists covering this debate would get straight what the various parties do and don't claim.
Last year was the fourth hottest ever recorded. The five hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. The last month to record below-average temperature was July 1985.
SO? How does that implicate man-made causes?
...The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say the world is warming, mainly because of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The biggest increase in those gases comes from the burning of fossil fuels. U.S. and foreign authorities predict a 5-degree Fahrenheit increase in the world’s average temperature by the end of the century. Ice sheets are melting, and species of birds and animals have moved to new areas because of warming.
Climate scientists? Do you guys just want more money? I had a conversation with an astronomy professor who said there was not a single astrophysicist he knew believed that the empirical data supported man causes global warming, which will lead to catastrophe. There is not enough information to make a conclusion.
I ordered "State of Fear" from Amazon earlier this week.
I hope this one becomes a best seller and a movie.
Just for new folks and those who haven't read this:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
This site is operated by Dr. Fredick Seitz, former head of the National Academy of Sciences. Seems that he, and over 19,000 (no, that's not a typo - thousand) scientists disagree with the usual doggerel about SUV's and evil America and thoughtless humanity farting up the earth's atomosphere. Note, too, that virtually all of the signatories have degrees in the earth sciences and most of whom hold advanced degrees and doctorates.
In short, one hell of a lot of informed people that disagree with the deeply 'scientific' Knight-Ridder selection of 18 whoevers.
Articles like this never seem to mention that even the scientific board convened by the UN on climate change did NOT endorse human-causality theory in climate change. Of course, the UN leadership sought to spin things this way and in their last report, the media was even bold enough to ignore what the report actually said and a press conference was convened to repudiate the mass media distortions - to no avail and conveniently ignored.
Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the seven founders of Greenpeace, has also seen the light and is now working for sane policies based on sound conservation and resource use. He has said that today's environmentalists are the equivalent of scientifically ignorant Nazis. Of course, he is routinely sent death threats and stalked by the enlightened Left.
Well, given the increasingly sensible climate induced by leadership that isn't pandering to global reallignment of national resources and sovereignty, I think we can look forward to increasing information flows and sane policy that will effectively put the dampers on the hysterical environmentalist propaganda.
That's all for now. I gotta go gas up my Stihl chainsaw and cut some wood to burn.
LOL, I love it when the lying fearmonger environuts are accused of lying and fear mongering......they really hate it when the truth is told.
As for the 5 degree increase in temperature, let those people at the end of the century worry about it. I'm sure they'll still be collecting social security from that "no problems here - lock box". Bwahahaha
I'll take Harvard over NYU any day.
Knight Ridder engaged in another factually-incorrect, logically-suspect "appeal to authority" in the absence of facts.
What are the chances that, if a refutation to the naysayers of global warming existed, it wouldn't be trumpeted from every rooftop at top volume?
There is at least one extemely well known scientist that agrees with Crichton. Dr. Kary Mullis, winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry, has placed "State of Fear" on his recommended reading list.
My impression is that articles such as this, which always claim a consensus, are misleading, I don't at all think there is a consensus in favor of global warming theories.
Further, I think there is no distortion of scientists' work in the book, it merely shows the work from another point of view. For instance, Chrichton makes sure to point out that Hansen believes in global warming.